LACCD Paperless Challenge - Chapter 3

The challenge (and promise) of digital signatures

I am staring at the first two pieces of paper I have created since I began the Paperless Challenge, wondering what went wrong.  It was a simple transaction, but one we face at LACCD everyday... I needed to get some signatures.  While there has been news in press lately about President Obama's "AutoPen" and its validity,  wet stamps and signatures are still the norm here, especially when it comes to signing and stamping drawings to the Division of the State Architect (DSA).

Try to understand this workflow:

1. We use computer software to create documents electronically.
2. When the document is issued for review, it may be issued as a paper document, or dsitributed electronically via e-mail, resulting in multiple copies
3. Copies are then marked up, on paper or electronically, and then sent back to the author.
4. Author updates original document in computer software.
5. When the document is complete, copies are made for review and signature.
6. LACCD requires a wet signature for official record.  Once signed, the 'original' hard copy document gets scanned and archived for future reference.  The hard copy is filed away for record.  
7. Hard Copies of signed drawings may then be distributed and used to mark up and track progress, and would need to be transferred to a revised set if updates to the drawings are necessary.

For CAD or BIM files, the route is even more circuitous.  Prints come from an electronic print or pdf file that is generated from a drawing or modeling software.  The drawings are a snapshot of a design that is today almost entirely captured on a computer.  Even if sketches or hand drawn details are used, we will not sign  the original copy.  Rather, a copy is placed on a drawing sheet, most likely as a scanned document.

So in the process of getting a signed document, we go from electronic document to hard copy or pdf for review, back to the original electronic document, and back to hard copy for signature and mark up.  In the process, there may also be several versions generated (both electronic or paper) that will get stored away in multiple places and never used again. 

If we trace the flow of documents, does it really make sense to create a hard copy for signature if the beginning and final documents we will use are digital files or mere reproductions of the original?  Obviously, there are security concerns when introducing an all digital media, but there is also the convenience and time factor.   If I have to log in to my computer to open up and sign a document, that will take a lot more time than just having a pen and stamp handy and signing a paper document that is handed to me.  With these considerations in mind,  I spent a couple days looking in to a few digital signature applications, both desktop and tablet based.   

Based upon LACCD's mix of large format drawings and small scale documents, here are two tools that are promising that look at digital stamps and signatures in very different ways:

Bluebeam Revu

Bluebeam has a secure digital signature tool, but getting a handwritten signature as opposed to an image or typed name, can be cumbersome

I decided to start with the software we already have in place, and concluded that if we still need to see 2D documents (many of which are not BIM related), pdfs are probably the best document format we could use since it is a universally used format and there are tools to secure its content from being edited. It is also the format already being used to archive our official documents electronically.  Bluebeam has a secure digital signature that allows you to add signature fields and create digital signatures and certifications.  While it is possible to edit the appearance, it can be cumbersome if a handwritten signature is desired, since you would need a digital pen and a graphic software that supports the pen to create a handwritten signature.  An alternative is to create a signature using the digital stamp tool, where you could bring in an image of your signature. The stamp tool is also great for inserting a digital replica of a rubber stamp, and can be done in just a matter of seconds on any number of documents.  

However, in the case of a digital stamp, a signature or stamp would have to be flattened (non-editable) in Bluebeam and the security verification features would not be enabled.  That being said, if all employees created a signature stamp and that signature could then be applied using Bluebeam, one could literally hand a tablet or mobile phone to a colleague for signature, and have them sign it in person on their mobile app.  

DocuSign Ink

Ink allows you to drag and drop your signature from your tablet,
but secure access still needs to be improved

If you are a heavy tablet user, and work primarily with smaller format documents,  then DocuSign Ink might  be a better solution.  Ink is a mobile app, and it can be connected to cloud based document storage services like Evernote, Google Drive, and DropBox.   The interface is pretty simple.  Choose a digital document, and then click on the "Sign" button.  If you are using the app for the first time, it will prompt you to create your own signature and initials before selecting a document.  You can then use your finger or a stylus to create the signature and store it as part of your profile.   When you are ready to sign, go back to the document, tap on the signature button, and drag and drop the signature in place. Size and fit the signature to your liking, and save the document.  Done!  If you want additional security, you can add a photo and profile information when the document is signed.  

If that is not enough, the feature that separates Ink from other digital signature apps is the ability to request signatures directly through the interface and either sign remotely or in person.  You have the option to send the document  remotely via email, or you can sign in person using a tablet.  In either scenario, Ink asks you to type in an email address for the recipient, and stores it on the document.  After you complete your signature, Ink will wait for the next signee.  If you need to have individuals sign in person, simply hand your tablet to your colleague, and let them review and sign the document as needed.  Once they are done, an email will be sent to each recipient with a record of the document.   

Two potential drawbacks that are worth noting: First, if you are signing with a tablet, make sure you are in a location where you can access wi-fi or cellular data while signing or the transaction will not process.  (This actually happened to me while I was trying to get a signature, which is why I had to make a hard copy.)

Second,  while Ink makes it is easy to set up accounts for all signees from your tablet, this also means that security can  be compromised.  Despite sending all signees an email after the transaction is complete, there is no way at this time for the software to verify you and your signees are actually who you claim to be, meaning you should still all agree to sign in person.  However, this would be a similar problem with a paper document so it is technically not a flawed solution, and you wouldn't get a digital copy with your paper document unless you scanned it manually.

Conclusion

If an organization is going to implement digital signatures across the enterprise, careful consideration needs to occur with regards to time, convenience, and most importantly security.  While there are many tools in the market place today, consider the workflow and type of documents you need to sign and stamp and test those tools before implementing. Then, spread the word and start to get buy in.  Change will not happen overnight, but every sheet counts.  And remember, unlike digital documents, once you print and you see a mistake, there is no "Undo" button to erase the sheet that you've used.  That is the lesson I learned today when I printed my first sheet in more than 10 days. 

  

LACCD Paperless Challenge - Chapter 2

Day 3

Still no paper documents created, but continue to have trouble going paperless when I dine out for lunch.  I use the digital reminder on my iPhone to remind me to bring in a cloth napkin, and to eat at places where they do not use paper.  Peace is restored...for now.

LACCD Paperless Challenge - Chapter 1 

It's been two days, and while I thought this would be an eye popping experience, I am quickly finding that my day to day work lifestyle is actually more sustainable than my personal lifestyle.  So far I have yet to create a paper document for work.  However, when it comes to eating out, I never thought about all the individual wrapping and paper napkins that we use.  More on that later.  For now, here's some highlights from my first two days of the paperless challenge at work.

Day 1

I spent some time mapping out which tools I would use to maintain a paperless workplace.  From a communication standpoint, solving the paperless puzzle has been something I have been working on for a while.  All written correspondence is email, and if I need a document to be immortalized, I create a .pdf.  If I need to collaborate I send the original document or share the link from ProjectWise.   I used to have small note pads or a sketchbook at my desk to jot down ideas or to do lists.  However, since I now have a tablet, I have been using apps to take care of these tasks.  "Paper" is a great app for sketching and jotting quick notes and the beautiful thing is that it seems to have unlimited pages meaning my sketchbook will never fill up.

Whenever I need to start mapping out an idea, this tool comes in handy, and forces me to carry my iPad around just like I did a regular sketchbook and pen in the past.  I can then save these sketches and send them off one at a time or as a book via email or social media.

For meeting minutes, I am a big fan of Evernote.  Here I can take notes, clip web pages, snap photos, record audio or simply upload sketches and documents with the free version.  I can then share the notes via email or a web link.  Keeping the files organized is pretty easy with a variety of search features that can even look for a word in a sketch or a photograph!  For a monthly fee you can also attach and view a variety of documents and collaborate with your colleagues.


Can I make you a copy?

During a meeting with my boss this week, I was asked to create a spreadsheet and was presented a paper sample of the document to review.  When asked if I would like a copy, I paused slightly, and then proudly proclaimed my intentions to go paperless.  Expecting a roll of the eyes, or some gentle ribbing, I was pleasantly surprised to find my colleague was sympathetic to my cause and even shared with me his story about digtizing his home records using a home scanner and recycling and shredding the paper documents that cluttered his garage. He then offered to loan me his copy which I obliged, and captured the document with the camera on my iPad.  I then used Evernote to organize the photo in to a new note.  When I returned to my desk, the photograph was already waiting for me.  Evernote automatically synchronized the image to my desktop, and I pulled up the photo as reference and began working on my document, and returned the paper copy intact.

I then started thinking about some other workflows that I needed to accommodate.  What if someone needs a signature?  What if I am at a campus and need to access a file I was working on at the Program Management office?  What if I want to collaborate with multiple consultants located a various offices across Southern California?  How do we encourage our construction managers to use the electronic drawings and BIM files to review and assess the quality of their projects?  The opportunities are endless! More to follow...

 

Can LACCD's Sustainable Building Program go 'paperless'?

image source - Vendor Price Book

In my efforts to increase my online presence this year, I was perusing the posts of some of the companies I follow on social media, and came across this one from Evernote:

2013 #Evernote Paperless Challenge
http://blog.evernote.com/blog/2013/01/08/a-new-paperless-challenge-to-kick-off-the-new-year/

The paperless challenge is an intriguing idea, and certainly something I have considered doing in the past.  So, this year, I decided to give it a go, which got me to thinking...what would it take to make LACCD's Sustainable Building  Program a paperless workplace?

We have a lot of tools already in place.  Last year, we rolled out Bentley ProjectWise and Bluebeam Revu to our College Project Managers and Program Management Sites and introduced the idea of digital doument review, paperless collaboration, and and web-based project delivery.  This is not to mention all the other computer software we already have in place like Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, our accounting software, scheduling databases, and of course CAD and BIM software that do not  require a single sheet of paper to get started.

However, the emergence of new technology is not always enough to make a paradigm shift in an industry that prefers hard copy submittals, wet stamp signatures, and still clings to binders and pens.  As I speak, I am just as guilty as everyone else.  As I look around my office, it is cluttered with binders and file folders full of reference documents, and I consider myself to have a pretty low carbon footprint.  All of this paper got me to thinking, when was the last time I looked at these documents, and why would I need a copy, especially if it is not a final draft, if there is a final digital version available somewhere?  I guess the bigger question here is where, exactly is that final document, and how can I access it when I need to?

So over the next 30 days, my mission is to go paperless, both in the workplace and in my personal lifestyle. At work, my goal is to create no paper documents for the next 30 days,  identify those workflows within our building program that could potentially benefit from a paperless workflow, and utilize our internal and any external resources we may have available to create a completely digital workplace.

More to come as this story develops...

source - linkers.com

At Autodesk University 2012, an Aging Industry and Maturing Technology Focus on Collaboration and Interoperability

There are certain things I never thought I'd see at Autodesk University.  In 2009, just a few months after beginning my assignment as BIM Manager for Los Angeles Community College District's Sustainable Building Program, I attended AU and was startled to see one of our Bentley resellers coming out of class with me. Now, I have no true allegiance toward one vendor versus another.  But seeing a vendor at their competitor's conference almost felt like it should have been a covert affair, and the sight of him immediately coming over to shake my hand in front of hundreds of people certainly threw me off guard. In fact, he was so open about the whole affair, it  made me wonder if we were being recorded by some hidden camera.  So I proceeded cautiously. 

However, as I conversed with him, he invited me to join him for lunch, and soon afterward, we found ourselves walking the exhibition showroom together.   As the afternoon progressed, it became quite evident that "Mr. Bentley's" attendance at Autodesk University had everything to do with his love for technology and his curiosity to learn more about his competition and nothing to do with embracing the "dark" side and joining Autodesk.  Just like the mafia, you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  Well, maybe it was not as dramatic as all that, but things were certainly not what they seemed.  Just the fact that this man in his 70's could probably whip the pants off most of the upstart technologists in that exhibit hall with his knowledge on CAD and BIM technology, brought him a certain Yoda-like presence that commanded respect.  From the outside, he looks like the last person to understand Building Information Modeling.  But, in the almost four years I have known him,  his enthusiasm for technology, innovation, and knowledge of industry trends never cease to amaze me.  Indeed, things are not always what they seem, and age should never be a barrier for embracing the promise of technology.    

Fast forward to this year's "I never thought I'd see it" moment... one of the feature keynote speakers at was Schuyler St. Leger, a prodigy 11 year old inventor and internet star of the Maker Faire.  Truth be told, up until last Tuesday, I had no idea who this kid was.  In fact, as a large image of Schuyler was placed side by side with a modified Las Vegas sign that said "Welcome to the Future", I had  chalked up his keynote address as a big gimmick by Autodesk.  In the midst of 10,000 designers, engineers and builders that were all at least twice his senior, the implication to me was that in a few year's time, innovators like young Schuyler, will be taking the place of  almost everyone in this room if they allow technology to pass them by.  But then, as I started to think of it, Schuyler's presence at AU, while symbolic in one aspect, was also based on his true story. .   As he addressed the crowd, Schuyler's message both verbally and physically was very simple:  technology is ubiquitous, and with each passing day, the tools we use to make and innovate are becoming easier to use and more accessible to everyone, especially his generation.  He stole the show, upstaging not only the other keynote speakers, but also Carl Bass, Mr. Autodesk himself.  Imagine that.  An 11 year old inventor as a keynote speaker for one of the largest software companies in the world, and he stood out more to me than all the other speakers in the session.  Certainly his age had something to do with it. However,  Schuyler's matter of fact approach to innovation brought out the wide-eyed wonder of youth transfused with the entrepreneurial spirit of business trying to solve the world's big problems.   Therefore, if my Bentley colleague was Yoda, Schuyler could very well be Luke Skywalker, re-inventing the venerable profession of manufacturing in to a personal venture of making stuff that is more accessible to the masses.

Where technology is racing ahead in industrial design, aeronautics and other types of manufacturing and engineering,  the design and construction industry needed a wake up call; and Schuyler St. Leger, in his four foot tall, wide-eyed optimistic, lab-coat-suited glory was the unexpected harbringer.  Indeed, as Autodesk celebrated its 20th AU, and the 10 year anniversary of their acquisition of Revit, BIM is no longer some emerging technology.  It has now been here for some time, and there is a need to see more traction.    Maybe that is why this year's conference seemed to offer more mature course offerings, less focused on innovation and more focused on collaboration and interoperability.   The message:  our industry can no longer be working in silos, nor rely upon parallel processes where re-work is part of the process, and margins for error still needlessly exist.  We need to collaborate now.  We need to be able to avoid the adversarial relationships that result in finger pointing, delays, and lawsuits.  Just as importantly,  this process now also needs to include the considerations of the Owner (in reality, it probably should have to begin with).  Gone are the days of simple paper and digital 2D deliverables.  Owners and building operators want the live BIM, and they want to see progress.  They want to be able to re-use the model and its data for their purposes: measuring building performance, providing operational data, and assisting in scheduling preventative maintenance.  Much like the builder, but perhaps even more so, an inaccurate model for an Owner can be a very expensive proposition.  For the builder, they can make a change order off errors and omissions.  For owners, not only do they pay for the errors and omissions of the design team, but now, they will also pay for undocumented, inaccurate as-builts that cannot be relied upon to help them maintain their facilities.  Likewise, if the data within the model is inaccurate and unreliable,  the model cannot be used as a baseline for energy performance.  Worse yet, the energy analysis completed during design may never have been accurate which means that the owner did not get delivered the building they thought they were getting. 

Indeed, as the number of AutoCAD courses continues to dwindle at AU,  focus on the "I" in BIM has started to emerge in the workflows presented at this year's conference.  In fact, I attended a larger offering of courses showing the workflow between multiple software platforms than I did in the last 3 conferences combined.  Interoperability was showcased for anything from Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis, to model based quantity take off, to the creation of smarter 3D details and automated operation manuals.  All of this interoperability lends itself to supporting a grander vision of building information modeling that allows us to quickly analyze, simulate, or design a building, and then round trip the data and geometry within a cloud based environment.  The good news is Autodesk does not think that Revit is the center of the universe anymore.  In fact, this year the software giant made it clear that Revit is just one of several tools they offer to complete a project from concept through design and construction and ultimately to be managed and operated.  The future according to Autodesk's message at this years conference, is that some of these services will now reside in "the cloud" and will be in partnership with other technologies.  Whether it is 3D visualization and rendering, or a CFD simulation to test wind dymnamics, or even a real time collaboration session, the move to a cloud based solution seems to be where Autodesk's focus will be in the foreseeable future.  

Just a few examples of this interoparability:

Two of my classes featured a Revit to Navisworks to Quantity Take off workflow that demonstrated how to edit the model geometry and the component data and export the model to quantity take off software for quick accurate estimates.

Another very interesting class featured a plug-in tool for Autodesk Inventor called Eco-Material Advisor,  geared toward measuring the ecological impact of product design.  The tool was very easy to use, and although marketed toward industrial engineers, building design professionals could also take advantage of this tool as a potential design and analysis tool to support LEED Certification.  Although the data from Inventor can not yet be pushed out to Revit Families, there is potential for this tool to be valuable in populating equipment schedules with fields for measuring recycled content, embodied energy, carbon footprint, or renewable resources.

Another strong focus of this year's conference was the push to try to understand owner needs with relation to BIM, and the search for usable metrics to support the relevance of evolving BIM Technology.  Unfortunately, I do not think the Owner's perspective has been accurately reflected, and we are still far from reaching the tipping point.  While buzz phrases such as "begin with the end in mind" and evidence supporting the need to address long term operational and maintenance costs (estimated at 80% of total building cost over its lifetime) continues to mount, no tangible metrics have been shown that provide direct savings to the owner in the form of building performance or reduced maintenance costs.  In fact, it was a bit disappointing to have only 3 or 4 owner representatives at my roundtable discussion for building owners on building a successful road map for BIM Implementation.  While there was a lively discussion about the opportunities architects have in helping owners define their BIM Requirements, what the industry needs to hear the most is the plight of the owner.  For only an owner can clearly explain why BIM should support their mission statement and business plan.  Only an Owner can tell you how they plan to use BIM Technology for their organization, and who in their organization is an expert, champion or liability for a successful BIM Implementation.  Most importantly, just as Schuyler St Leger points out,  with technology being so accessible and ubiquitous today, only a building owner can tell you if they are willing enough to embrace the change and demand cross-mentoring between the technically savvy boomer generation and the technologically wired Y generation.

The Great CAD vs. BIM Debates shifts to GIS

The great CAD vs. BIM debate shifts to GIS...

http://www.cadalyst.com/gis/bim-vs-gis-14381

A great article on the state of the debate for the value of BIM and GIS for Owners.  As you will read, the industry is still quire divided on best practices, but as the number of BIM users increases, this is sure to become a huge topic that will need some alignment for Owners of all types.  The good news...the focus is now becoming about how the data will be used and less about the graphics used to deliver a building, meaning that a full life cycle process for the AECOO industry is starting to take shape.

explore LACCD's GIS Portal!

LOD - Level of Detail, Level of Development, or Largely Over Disputed?

Found a great post this morning that I thought I'd share about LOD and BIM.


http://www.allthingsbim.com/2012/03/moving-forward-with-lod.html


The author James Van is pretty dead on.  There is no such thing as LOD models for BIM.  It is much more granular than that.  "LOD" is a rule of thumb for the level of progression of a model at various points of a project.    However, as an owner it is not reasonable to expect nor should you just blankly accept a LOD XXX model.  LOD (for purposes of this example, I say "level of detail") should refer to the information within the elements of the model and its systems.  Meaning with each level of model progression, a deeper level of information shall be provided.  Now here is the tricky part...even though it is considered the "as-built" level, LOD 500 may not be appropriate for all elements of you model.  In fact, you should only expect LOD 500 of those parts of your model which you know will need to contain data critical to your maintenance and operations staff.  At LACCD, we have started to identify those simply as model, manufacturer, material, location, system information, and performance data.


You could also ask your teams to add links to  O+M Manuals, Training and Safety Videos,   Warranty Data, and maybe even record drawings.  You could even ask your team to include this data in a CAFM (Computer-aided facility management) System if your organization has one.   However, as you can see, only some of this information is actually model data. This may be why LOD is generally referred to "Level of Development" since not all levels of "D" are equal in the weight of information to be provided. In fact, modeling a particular part of a system such as mechanical ducts or structural steel at an LOD 400 may actually be more appropriate for a fabrication model than an LOD 500 because this level of development refers to data pertaining to assemblage, parts and pieces, and construction and installation details.


Be careful what you ask for. 


As an Owner, you could ask for every element and system to be LOD 500; but if you do, expect the price of your BIM deliverable to jump dramatically, and the return of your investment to decline in the same manner.  Some building elements (interior partitions, for example) do not really need a manual or maintenance data to operate.  For this reason, you may want to ask your team to provide their own Model Progression Specification as part of their BIM Execution Plan.  You should then carefully review this and see if it meets your expectations for what you require to receive at the end of the project.  You may also want to check the progress as the project moves along, with some sort of Model Progression Spec or Model QA Validation process of your own.  As we tell many of our College Project Managers, even though we deal with many Design-Build Projects where collaboration is to be expected, you should trust but verify.  An LOD or Model Progression Spec won't be able to do that alone.  It will still require you to have a process of reviewing the models and content and tying it back to your requirements.  Likewise, using a system that refers to COBie may help with the data, but it won't tell you if  your model is assembled incorrectly or missing linked files or details.  Therefore, a more visual approach is needed.


"Walk" the model  

Clash free does not mean coordinated - Not all coordination issues are clashes.  Therefore, it is important to "walk" the model just as you might a construction site.    

In the true context of BIM, the model your team develops to document the design and construction of the building should ultimately be a virtual representation of the building itself.  Upon final delivery to the Owner, the record model should have accurate geometry and data that reflects the actual systems and their location.  If it does not, then what good is it to your future building users and operators?.  This is also where the use of LOD really has no ability to gauge the quality of the model itself.  You need to see it to believe it.


A couple of years ago, while reviewing a BIM deliverable, one of our project managers referred to the process as a Virtual Punch List as we started to mark up constructability and maintenance concerns within a consolidated coordination model that was supposed to be "construction ready."   This process has now evolved in to a fundamental part of our model review, as it helps stakeholders to begin to better visualize a building they once only knew in 2D.  We then include the models and markups and a spreadsheet of our quality assurance review and send it back to our consultants for their comment.  This continues up through building completion, and until project close out, and may also include participation of facilities staff, construction safety managers, and accessibility experts.


The bottom line is do not rely upon "LOD" alone to deliver you the model you expect.  Require your team: owner, designer, and builder alike, to really analyze the model and its content.  The LOD can be a good gauge, but unless you literally open up the model and have look...you don't know what you don't know.